This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.

November 9, 2016

Want to Fight Back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

There were 25 debates during the presidential primaries and general election and not a single question about the attack on voting rights, even though this was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. Fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016—including crucial swing states like Wisconsin and Virginia—yet we heard nary a peep about it on Election Day except from outlets like The Nation. This was the biggest under-covered scandal of the 2016 campaign.

We’ll likely never know how many people were kept from the polls by restrictions like voter-ID laws, cuts to early voting, and barriers to voter registration. But at the very least this should have been a question that many more people were looking into. For example, 27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives, according to Daniel Nichanian of the University of Chicago.

I documented stories of voters in Wisconsin—including a 99-year-old man—who made two trips to the polls and one to the DMV on Election Day just to be able to vote, while others decided not to vote at all because they were denied IDs. When Margie Mueller, an 85-year-old woman from Plymouth, Wisconsin, wasn’t allowed to vote with her expired driver’s license, her husband, Alvin, decided not to vote either. They were both Democrats. “The damn Republicans,” he said, “don’t want Latinos and old people to vote.”

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

Andrew Voegele, a schoolteacher, recently moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and was forced to cast a provisional ballot yesterday that will not be counted unless he surrenders his Minnesota license and spends $34 for a Wisconsin driver’s license by Friday. The ACLU filed a court order last night to have his vote count. Over 200 people in Wisconsin petitioned the DMV on Election Day to get a voter ID.

4

5

How many people were turned away from the polls? How many others didn’t bother to show up in the first place? These are questions we need to take far more seriously. In 2014, a study by Rice University and the University of Houston of Texas’s 23rd Congressional District found that 12.8 percent of registered voters who didn’t vote in the election cited lack of required photo ID as a reason they didn’t cast a ballot, even though only 2.7 percent of registered voters actually lacked an acceptable ID. Texas’s strict voter-ID law blocked some voters from the polls while having an ever larger deterrent effect on others. Eighty percent of these voters were Latino and strongly preferred Democratic candidates.

On Election Day, there were 868 fewer polling places in states with a long history of voting discrimination, like Arizona, Texas, and North Carolina. These changes impacted hundreds of thousands of voters, yet received almost no coverage. In North Carolina, as my colleague Joan Walsh reported, black turnout decreased 16 percent during the first week of early voting because “in 40 heavily black counties, there were 158 fewer early polling places.” Even if these restrictions had no outcome on the election, it’s fundamentally immoral to keep people from voting in a democracy. The media devoted hours and hours to Trump’s absurd claim that the election was rigged against him, while spending precious little time on the real threat that voters faced.

I want to salute the people that did cover voting rights doggedly, including Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog; Michael Wines of The New York Times; Sari Horwitz of The Washington Post; Alice Ollstein, Kira Lerner, and Ian Millhiser of Think Progress; Tierney Sneed of Talking Points Memo; Zack Roth, Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton of MSNBC; Mark Joseph-Stern and Jamelle Bouie of Slate; David Graham of The Atlantic; Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog, in addition to great local reporters like Bryan Lowry of the Wichita Eagle; Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; and Colin Campbell of the Raleigh News & Observer. ProPublica organized an essential Electionland project with reporters across the country. But when it really mattered, too many in the media treated the right to vote as a fringe issue instead of the most fundamental issue in the election.

Just got done watching MSNBC . . . where they were talking about the protesters (of the impending Trump Presidency) Equating the loss in the electoral college v the popular vote, to a baseball game where one team got more more home runs 5 to 2, the 5 being single rum homers and the 2 were three run.
But they didn’t factor in the gerrymandering and voter Id laws that were equivalent to moving the pitcher’s mound back five feet, thus allowing the one team to get more base runners.

This is the what and why the protesters and the media should be elaborating on.

(36)(14)

David Andersonsays:

November 11, 2016 at 1:55 am

The most undercovered story was how the DEM establishment colluded with the Hillary campaign to stop Sanders. For that, we have Trump.

(51)(46)

Stephen Moransays:

November 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Too damn right. The DNC candidate lost because she wanted to be both the candidate of Wall Street and the Walmart "deplorables" who she used to crack the whip over. It's amazing anyone could lose to such a hated buffoon as Trump, but we have the MSM and the nation to thank for Prez Trump. The polls were telling us all along that the real enthusiasm was with Bernie, who picked his side and fought for it consistently for the past 35 years. He would have won handily had the DNC not decided there would be no primary, no coverage of Sanders, and no need for Democracy this election: the commoners of America would be represented by a hedge fund Queen of their appointing. The DNC and soi-disant left wing press like this disgraceful Republican lite mag will have to think of some reasons why they even exist after embracing neocon-neoliberal policies if they'd like to see Democrats elected to office again.
Hillary lost because the "point" of her campaign--pressed by all the MSM--was that Trump was an absurd menace. That seems true enough, but someone on the left ought to have realized Bernie had a message that was much more Democratic than scare-mongering, and that people responded in the millions despite your own chorus of fear-mongering.
The commentariat really fucked this one up, despite all the obvious evidence. Kind of like their take on Iraq etc. how about some mass resignations? A soldier's death or two for the most egregious offenders?

(24)(28)

Jake Hawkessays:

November 15, 2016 at 12:22 am

The story is about voter suppression. Do you really think that it would have been any less with Bernie on the ticket? Why would it? It's a fools dream.
We have Fox News, the MSM, CNN, and all the fucking morons who think Trump will be better for them than a seasoned, polished intelligent politician like Hillary to thank for the destruction of this country.
If we survive the Trump presidency it will be in spite of his belligerence and ignorance. It may require a military coup to stop him from nuking China or North Korea whose president sent a nasty tweet about him.
We can only hope that the joint chiefs have the wherewithal to stop him...

(25)(9)

Mary Pricesays:

November 10, 2016 at 11:38 pm

The electoral college is so outdated. We should get rid of it.

(41)(35)

Fred Carusosays:

December 27, 2016 at 10:39 pm

In your dreams. The rural states would no sooner give up a Senator. The simple solution is to encourage States to enter their electoral votes proportionally (like Maine and Nebraska have done since 1880) instead of winner-take-all.

The incentive for States is that each elector votes separately, as their district voted (there's one for every Congressional District.)

This means all elector votes will count for all candidates - Presidential candidates will court all State's voters (not just swing States) regardless of size, because candidates will be campaigning to win Congressional districts, not entire States.

Winner-take-all causes candidates to skip deep red or deep blue States when campaigning, and focus only on so-called "battleground" States.

(3)(1)

Michael Laveringsays:

November 13, 2016 at 4:31 pm

As an automatic reaffirmation of each State’s popular vote, yes I agree that the electoral college has outlived it’s usefulness.
But on the other hand, if the delegates to the College served the purpose as the framers intended, similar to a Judge who sets aside a jury verdict . . . "The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers”.
As we saw in this election thirteen states won by Trump used “voter Id laws” to manipulate the vote. Then the candidate himself lied no less then 571 times, and is facing criminal fraud charges.
Hamilton and the rest of the founders envisioned the Trump Candidacy, and gave the Republic a means to deal with it short of rebellion. Now we must demand the delegates do their job.

(25)(4)

Christopher Mobleysays:

November 11, 2016 at 2:29 pm

The constitutional amendment has zero chance for passage. Small states would never vote in favor of it.

(19)(4)

Jennifer Zientysays:

November 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

Some commentator last night said there was a way to make the electoral college more responsive to the popular vote without any constitutional amendment getting rid of ot.

(9)(2)

Michael Laveringsays:

November 11, 2016 at 6:16 pm

I heard that from Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC’s the last word host), currently 13 states have the law on the books that the EC delegates must vote in accordance with the popular vote.

Currently, if one candidate won 51% of the vote in the top 11 states and no other votes in the other 40 they could win the presidency with only 29% of the popular vote. Conversely, if they won the smaller 41 states with 51% of the popular vote they could be president with only 23.5% of the popular vote.

(4)(2)

Patricia Derushsays:

November 10, 2016 at 10:30 pm

Yes! This is the first place we need to focus on (and I think I heard Pres. Obama is taking this on as a focus right after he leaves office)
State by State we need to see what we can change to stop this disenfranchisement

(33)(10)

Marjo Tesselaarsays:

November 10, 2016 at 9:43 pm

I do not understand why the Democrats allow this, they never talk about it .Obama
has the bully pulpit but does not inform the people. the Republicans control everything. In Broward County Fla, 4 people were rewriting the absenty ballots according to an employee, that is why it took so long to get the results there. I thought it was suspicious at the time.

(21)(4)

Tammy Owenssays:

November 10, 2016 at 8:11 pm

perhaps we need a huge change in the white house, for example if a democrat wins, a republican should be the vice, president. and vice versa [if a libertarian wins then another party is vice] and so on. that way they can represent everyone. lol no more of this nonsense of one party in total control. and once someone runs , they should all be on the ticket, and not be expected to drop out in favor of someone with more money. and get rid of the darn unfair electoral college .

(18)(14)

Michael Laveringsays:

November 10, 2016 at 9:33 pm

Get rid of the electoral college is a big thumps up. But really when 46% of people don’t vote, unfortunately we get what we deserve.

(24)(11)

Carolyn Herzsays:

November 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

There is no doubt that Republican legislators and governors have restricted the right to vote through onerous laws and partisan gerrymandering. However, in order to do that, they had to get elected in the first place. Where were the Democrats in 2010? Democrats had their tails between their legs running away from Obamacare instead of strongly promoting Democratic Party values, and so they let Republicans take over so many state governments. If we don't stand up for constitutional rights, there is no shortage of autocrats and plutocrats eager to take them away.

(47)(11)

Karin Eckvallsays:

November 10, 2016 at 12:38 pm

It is a horrible thing. What are Democrats politicians and groups doing to fight it?